Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Renaissance

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

German Renaissance

German Renaissance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Renaissance Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

German Renaissance has been templated since April 2008 for insufficient references. No more than 10% of the content has any citation. Therefore, the article does not satisfy the policies on WP:V and WP:RS. It has also been templated since April 2008 for unencyclopedic tone: it is written like a D+ high school essay on why the subject matter is important. The subject matter is better treated in other, well referenced articles. The overall subject is fully treated in Renaissance and Northern Renaissance. Sections of the article are better treated in articles about the section topics and about the persons, artworks, and books discussed in the sections. I am not a deletionist, but the overall quality of this article is embarrassingly poor even in comparison to the worst quartile of Wikipedia articles. It needs a lot of copy editing, more than I can manage, but even with that you would still have an article that is worse than other articles about the same subjects and that contributes no new knowledge. Despite the April 2008 templates, there is no evidence of work to improve the article, even on the article's talk page.—Finell 05:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Finell 05:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is an a poor state, but does not require a WP:NUKE. Template it, and wait for someone to take mercy on this; the topic is clearly notable, and while WP:V suggests we remove unreferenced content, it's a pretty dead threat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: You say "Template it", but it has already been templated for 7.5 years and is still in the same sorry state. If there is a way to interest a project into overhauling it, that would be preferable to deletion. How can we do that?—Finell 01:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per Piotrus. The article is pretty poor, but the single para in Renaissance is also not very good, though Northern Renaissance is better; neither amount to "The overall subject is fully treated ...." at all. These are also largely unreferenced but have fortunately escaped drive-by templaters, who seem attracted by anything with "German" in the title - see German art. Perhaps these are pointy marauders from German WP. The material is poorly written common knowledge. Judicious attributed copying from other articles would be a start on improving it. The article as it now is is mostly as made over by a student SPA in 2008, presumably for a project. Parts of earlier versions like this are actually better. It gets nearly 30K desktop views pa, btw. I've added a hefty art section from GA anyway. Wikipedia is unfortunately chock-full of poor spotty articles like this on subjects too important to delete. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per Piotrus. Improvement, not deletion, is the proper remedy for the many flaws of this article. Copyediting is sorely needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is obviously notable and no valid reasons for deletion have been given. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Nom, I have fixed the butchered AFD page. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.